Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

5. Ectogestative Technology and the Beginning of Life

Chapter of: Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies: An Introduction(pp. 113–140)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.1
  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: No priced EPUB or PDF URL
  • ONIX 2.1
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
Title5. Ectogestative Technology and the Beginning of Life
ContributorLily Eva Frank(author)
Julia Hermann(author)
Llona Kavege(author)
Anna Puzio(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0366.05
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0366/chapters/10.11647/obp.0366.05
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightLily Eva Frank, Julia Hermann et al.
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2023-09-05
Long abstractHow could ectogestative technology disrupt gender roles, parenting practices, and concepts such as “birth”, “body”, or “parent”? In this chapter, we situate this emerging technology in the context of the history of reproductive technologies, and analyse the potential social and conceptual disruptions to which it could contribute. An ectogestative device, better known as “artificial womb”, enables the extra-uterine gestation of a human being, or mammal more generally. It is currently developed with the main goal to improve the survival chances of extremely premature neonates. We argue that the intended use of the technology in neonatal intensive care units, as an alternative to current incubators (“partial- ectogestation”), challenges concepts such as “birth”, “fetus”, and “neonate”, and has several ethico-legal implications. We moreover address a more futuristic scenario where the entire embryological and fetal development could happen within an artificial womb (“full-ectogestation”). Such a scenario reveals the disruption of gender roles, parenting practices, and concepts such as “mother”, “father”, and “parent”. Both full- and partial-ectogestation would have implications for engineering and design, law-making, ethics, and philosophical anthropology.
Page rangepp. 113–140
Print length28 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Contributors

Lily Eva Frank

(author)
Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at Eindhoven University of Technology
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8659-2390

Lily Eva Frank is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at Eindhoven University of Technology where she works on technologies of the body and ways in which they can be ethically and socially disruptive. ORCID: 0000-0001-8659-2390

Julia Hermann

(author)
Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at University of Twente
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9990-4736

Julia Hermann is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at the University of Twente where she works on ectogestative technology, care robots, technomoral change and progress, and new methodologies in the ethics of technology. ORCID: 0000-0001-9990-4736

Llona Kavege

(author)
Fulbright research fellow at Technische Universiteit Delft
Fulbright research fellow at University of Twente
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6074-3912

Llona Kavege is a Fulbright research fellow in the Netherlands based at TU Delft and the University of Twente where she investigates the moral and social dimensions of partial-ectogestation. ORCID: 0009-0000-6074-3912

Anna Puzio

(author)
Postdoctoral Researcher of Philosophy and Ethics at University of Twente
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8339-6244

Anna Puzio is a Postdoctoral Researcher of Philosophy and Ethics at the University of Twente where she works on the anthropology and ethics of technology, transhumanism, new materialism, robotics, reproductive technologies, diversity in AI and environmental ethics. ORCID: 0000-0002-8339-6244

References
  1. Alhusen, Jeanne L. 2008. ‘A literature update on maternal-fetal attachment’, Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 37(3), 315–28, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.2008.00241.x
  2. Beech, Beverley A. Lawrence, and Belinda Phipps. 2008. ‘Normal birth: women’s stories’, in Normal Childbirth: Evidence and Debate, ed. by Soo Downe (Elsevier, 2008, second edition), 67–81
  3. Ber, Rosalie. 2000. ‘Ethical issues in gestational surrogacy’, Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 21, 153–69, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009956218800
  4. Boenink, Marianne, Swierstra, Tsjalling, and Stemerding, Dirk. 2010. ‘Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: A scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology’, Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1098
  5. Cahill, Heather A. 2001. ‘Male appropriation and medicalization of childbirth: An historical analysis’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(3), 334–42, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01669.x
  6. Cleveland Clinic. 2020. ‘Fetal development: Month-by-month stages of pregnancy’, Cleveland Clinic, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth
  7. Conrad, Peter, and Joseph W. Schneider. 1992. Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness. (Temple University Press)
  8. CORDIS European Commission. 2019. ‘Brave new world? Artificial womb prototype offering hope for premature babies’, CORDIS EU Research Results, https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/411541-brave-new-world-artificial-womb-prototype-offering-hope-for-premature-babies
  9. Cranley, Mecca S. 1981. ‘Development of a tool for the measurement of maternal attachment during pregnancy’, Nursing Research 30(5), pp. 281–84, https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198109000-00008
  10. De Bie, Felix, Sarah Kim, Sourav Bose, Pamela Nathanson, Emily Partridge, Alan Flake, and Chris Feudtner. 2022. ‘Ethics considerations regarding artificial womb technology for the fetonate’, The American Journal of Bioethics, 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2048738
  11. Doan, Helen, and Anona Zimerman. 2008. ‘Prenatal attachment: A developmental model’, International Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Medicine, 20(1–2), 20–28
  12. Edwards, Arlene E. 2000. ‘Community mothering: The relationship between mothering and the community work of Black women’, Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, 2(2), 87–100
  13. Fasouliotis, Sozos, and Joseph Schenker. 2000. ‘Maternal–fetal conflict’, European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 89(1): 101–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(99)00166-9
  14. Friedman, Batya, Peter H. Kahn, and Alan Borning. 2002. ‘Value sensitive design: Theory and methods’, University of Washington Technical Report, 2–12
  15. Gelfand, Scott. 2006. ‘Introduction’, in Ectogenesis: Artificial Womb Technology and the Future of Human Reproduction, ed. by Scott Gelfand and John Shook (Amsterdam; New York, NY: Brill/Rodopi)
  16. Göbel, Ariane, Lydia Yao Stuhrmann, Susanne Harder, Michael Schulte-Markwort, and Susanne Mudra. 2018. ‘The association between maternal-fetal bonding and prenatal anxiety: An explanatory analysis and systematic review’, Journal of Affective Disorders, 239: 313–27, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.07.024
  17. Grafton, Anthony. 1999. Natural Particulars: Nature and the Disciplines in Renaissance Europe (Boston: MIT Press)
  18. Graham, Elaine. 1999. ‘Words made flesh: Women, embodiment and practical theology’, Feminist Theology, 7(21): 109–21, https://doi.org/10.1177/096673509900002108
  19. Haldane, John. 1924. Daedalus or Science and the Future (New York: Dutton), https://www.gutenberg.org/files/70955/70955-h/70955-h.htm
  20. Haraway, Donna. 2004. ‘A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and social feminism in the 1980s’, in The Haraway Reader, ed. by Donna Haraway (New York: Routledge), 7–45 (Original work published in 1985)
  21. Haslanger, Sally. 2014. ‘Social meaning and philosophical method’, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 88: 16–37
  22. Hofmann, Bjørn. 2002. ‘Is there a technological imperative in health care?’, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 18(3): 675–89, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462302000491
  23. Horn, Claire. 2020. ‘The history of the incubator makes a sideshow of mothering’, PSYCHE, https://psyche.co/ideas/the-history-of-the-incubator-makes-a-sideshow-of-mothering
  24. Hooton, Victoria, and Romanis, Elizabeth C. 2022. ‘Artificial womb technology, pregnancy, and EU employment rights’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 9(1), lsac009, https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsac009
  25. Ji, Eun-Kyung, Dolores Pretorius, Ruth Newton, K. Uyan, Andrew D. Hull, Kathryn Hollenbach, and Thomas R. Nelson. 2005. ‘Effects of ultrasound on maternal‐fetal bonding: A comparison of two‐and three‐dimensional imaging’, Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 25(5): 473–77, https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.1896
  26. Kingma, Elselijn. 2019. ‘Were you a part of your mother?’, Mind, 128(511): 609–46, https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzy087
  27. Kingma, Elselijn, and Suki Finn. 2020. ‘Neonatal incubator or artificial womb? Distinguishing ectogestation and ectogenesis using the metaphysics of pregnancy’, Bioethics, 34(4): 354–63, https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12717
  28. Koenig, Barbara. 1988. ‘The technological imperative in medical practice: The social creation of a “routine” treatment’, in Biomedicine Examined, ed. by Margaret Lock and Deborah Gordon (Dordrecht: Springer), 465–96, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2725-4_18
  29. Landau, Ruth. 2007. ‘Artificial womb versus natural birth: An exploratory study of women’s views’, Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 25(1), 4–17, https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830601117118
  30. Leifer, Myra. 1980. Psychological Effects of Motherhood: A Study of First Pregnancy (New York: Praeger)
  31. Lincetto, Omella, and Banerjee, Anshu 2020. ‘World prematurity day: Improving survival and quality of life for millions of babies born preterm around the world’, American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology, 319(5), L871-L874, https://doi.org/10.1152/ajplung.00479.2020
  32. Lubetzky, Ofra. 2020. ‘The maternal-fetus relationship in the uterus: Essential for wellbeing through life’, Journal of Prenatal & Perinatal Psychology & Health, 34(6)
  33. McCully, Sophia. 2021. ‘The time has come to extend the 14-day limit’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(12): e66, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106406
  34. Mills, Catherine. 2014. ‘Making fetal persons: Fetal homicide, ultrasound, and the normative significance of birth’, Philosophia, 4(1): 88–107, https://doi.org/10.26180/5f3f817b0a0c5
  35. Myers II, B. E. 2014. ‘“Drapetomania” Rebellion, defiance and free Black insanity’, in the Antebellum United States (Los Angeles: University of California)
  36. Nisha, Zairu. 2021. ‘Technicization of “birth” and “mothering”: Bioethical debates from feminist perspectives’, Asian Bioethics Review, 13, 133–48, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-021-00169-z
  37. Partridge, Emily, Marcus Davey, Matthew Hornick, Patrick McGovern, Ali Mejaddam, Jesse Vrecenak, Carmen Mesas-Burgos, Aliza Olive, Robert Caskey, Theodore Weiland, Jiancheng Han, Alexander Schupper, James Connelly, Kevin Dysart, Jack Rychik, Holly Hedrick, William Peranteau, and Alan Flake. 2017. ‘An extra-uterine system to physiologically support the extreme premature lamb’, Nature Communications, 8(1): 15112, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15112
  38. Perrot, Adeline, and Ruth Horn. 2022. ‘The ethical landscape (s) of non-invasive prenatal testing in England, France and Germany: Findings from a comparative literature review’, European Journal of Human Genetics, 30(6): 676–81, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-021-00970-2
  39. Phillips, Bianca, and Beng Beng Ong. 2018. ‘“Was the infant born alive?” A review of postmortem techniques used to determine live birth in cases of suspected neonaticide’, Academic Forensic Pathology, 8(4): 874–93, https://doi.org/10.1177/1925362118821476
  40. Puzio, Anna. 2022. Über-Menschen. Philosophische Auseinandersetzung mit der Anthropologie des Transhumanismus (Bielefeld: transcript Verlag), https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839463055
  41. Rifkin, Jeremy. 2002. ‘The end of pregnancy’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jan/17/gender.medicalscience
  42. Rohwer, Yasha, and Emma Marris. 2018. ‘An analysis of potential ethical justifications for mammoth de-extinction and a call for empirical research’, Ethics, Policy & Environment, 21(1): 127–42, https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2018.1448043
  43. Romanis, Elizabeth C. 2018. ‘Artificial womb technology and the frontiers of human reproduction: Conceptual differences and potential implications’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(11): 751–55, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-104910
  44. Romanis, Elizabeth. 2019. ‘Artificial womb technology and the significance of birth: Why gestatelings are not newborns (or fetuses)’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(11): 728–31, http://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105495
  45. Romanis, Elizabeth, Dunja Begović, Margot Brazier, and Alexandra Katherine Mullock. 2020. ‘Reviewing the womb’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(12): 820–29, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106160
  46. Rothman, Barbara Katz. 1991. In Labor: Women and Power in the Birthplace. (New York: W. W. Norton & Co)
  47. Rothman, David. 1997. Beginnings Count: The Technological Imperative in American Health Care (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  48. Ruf, Simon. 2001. ‘Über-Menschen. Elemente einer genealogie des cyborgs’, in Mediale Anatomien. Menschenbilder als Medienprojektionen (Kultur- und Medientheorie), ed. by Annette Keck and Nicolas Pethes (Bielefeld: transcript), 267–86, https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839400760-015
  49. Ruspini, Elisabetta. 2015. Diversity in Family Life: Gender, Relationships and Social Change (Bristol: Policy Press)
  50. Schwartz, Oscar. 2019. ‘On the history of the artificial womb’, JSTOR Daily, https://daily.jstor.org/on-the-history-of-the-artificial-womb/
  51. Singer, Peter, and Deaene Wells. 2006. ‘Ectogenesis’, in Ectogenesis, ed. by Scott Gelfand and John Shook (Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi), 9–25, https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401203456_005
  52. Sullivan, Lawrence, and Nancy Liu-Sullivan. 2021. Historical Dictionary of Chinese Culture (London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers)
  53. Thweatt, Jeanine. 2016. Cyborg Selves. A Theological Anthropology of the Posthuman (London: Routledge), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315575728
  54. ——. 2018. ‘Cyborg-Christus: Transhumanismus und die Heiligkeit des Körpers’, in Designobjekt Mensch. Die Agenda des Transhumanismus auf dem Prüfstand, ed. by Benedikt Göcke and Frank Meier-Hamidi (Freiburg: Herder), 363–76
  55. Tong-Hyun, Kim. (2023 29 June). “South Koreans grow younger overnight as the country changes how it counts people’s ages.” https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-age-counting-law-a38a4a6b47c6864bd13433fdac071cec
  56. Tronto, Joan. 1993. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethics of Care (New York; London: Routledge)
  57. Usuda, Haruo, Shimpei Watanabe, Masatoshi Saito, Shinichi Sato, Gabrielle C. Musk, Erin Fee, Sean Carter, Yusaku Kumagai, Tsukasa Takahashi, Shinichi Kawamura, Takushi Hanita, Shigeo Kure, Nobuo Yaegashi, John P. Newnham, and Matthew W. Kemp. 2019. ‘Successful use of an artificial placenta to support extremely preterm ovine fetuses at the border of viability’, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 221(1): 69.e1–69.e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.03.001
  58. Van der Hout-van der Jagt, Beatrijs, Joanne Verweij, Peter Andriessen, Willem de Boode, Arend Bos, Frank Delbressine, Alex Eggink, Jan Jaap Erwich, Loe Feijs, Floris Groenendaal, Boris Kramer, Titia Lely Rachel Loop, Franziska Neukamp, Wes Onland, Martijn Oudijk, Arjan te Pas, Irwin Reiss, Mark Schoberer, Ralph Scholten, Marc Spaanderman, Myrthe van der Ven, Marijn Vermeulen, Frans van de Vosse, and Guid Oei. 2022. ‘Interprofessional consensus regarding design requirements for liquid-based Perinatal Life Support (PLS) technology’, Frontiers in Pediatrics, 9: 1601, https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.793531
  59. Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2008. ‘Obstetric ultrasound and the technological mediation of morality: A postphenomenological analysis’, Human Studies, 31(1): 11–26, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-007-9079-0
  60. ——. 2009. ‘The moral relevance of technological artifacts’, in Evaluating New Technologies (Dordrecht: Springer), 63–77, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2229-5_6
  61. Verweij, Joanne, Lien De Proost, Judith van Laar, Lily Frank, Sylvia Obermann-Borstn, Marijn Vermeulen, Sophie van Baalen, Beatrijs van der Hout-van der Jagt, and Elselijn Kingma. 2021. ‘Ethical development of artificial amniotic sac and placenta technology: A roadmap’, Frontiers in Pediatrics, 9: 793308, https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.793308
  62. Vollmer, Brigitte, and Caroline Edmonds. 2019. ‘School age neurological and cognitive outcomes of fetal growth retardation or small for gestational age birth weight’, Frontiers in Endocrinology, 10: 186, https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00186